JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. A classic instance of where discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner is provided here.
2. It was about six years ago on October 29, 1988, that the petitioner joined service of the respondent Bank and after working for just two days left on November 1, 1988 without seeking or obtaining leave. About six weeks later, on December 12, 1988, he is said to have sent an application for leave. There is no material on record to show that any leave was ever sanctioned. Later, on January 17, 1989, he submitted his resignation from service but on April 5, 1989 he is said to have written another letter withdrawing it. It appears that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted, but it is not clear from the record when it was accepted, as there is mention in one document that it had been accepted on December 12, 1991 while in the other his name is stated to have been struck off the rolls on November 26, 1991. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not seek any legal redress thereafter until he filed the present petition in May, 1994.
3. The picture that now emerges is that the entire service of the petitioner with the respondent-Bank was of just two days and that too six years ago. The relief sought is the quashing of acceptance of his resignation on the ground that he had withdrawn his resignation before it had been accepted and as a consequence thereof that he should be permitted to re-join service.
4. A mere legal flaw does not by itself render it incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. It is the totality of the circumstances of the case that have to be seen. Even if it be taken that the resignation had been accepted after its withdrawal, this withdrawal of resignation took place as far back as six years ago. Taking then its acceptance to have been in 1991, that too is now over three years ago and 2 days is the total service of the petitioner. These are clearly no circumstances to warrant any occasion for the grant of any relief. The claim for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in such a case merely deserves to be high-lighted by its denial.
5. This writ petition is, with these observations, hereby dismissed.